Definitive Report - REPORT_NO141, 1974

1. 8. The complaint of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation is contained in a letter dated 20 November 1972. This was transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations in a letter dated 24 April 1973.
2. 9. Bangladesh has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 10. The complainants indicate that they are a national organisation representing more than half a million workers belonging to various types of industries, transport services and establishments. The complaint concerns mainly the adoption of certain measures by the Government, which has allegedly suppressed collective bargaining and the right to strike in nationalised industries and public corporations. In this connection the complainants refer to the Presidential Order of May 1972 doing away with the right to strike in the above-mentioned sector, which constitutes 85 per cent of the country's economy. They also mention the New Labour Policy announced by the Minister for Labour on 25 September 1972, according to which collective bargaining in this sector is abolished. In its place a system of workers' representation in Management Councils and Worker-Management Councils is instituted, but these bodies will be unable to deal with such questions as wages or other financial benefits. According to the complainants, the large national federations have declared protest strikes against the New Labour Policy. Finally, they indicate that the Government has, amongst other things, forbidden the weekly "Lal Pataka" (Red Flag), which was the mouthpiece of the complainant organisation.
2. 11. In its reply the Government maintains that the Bangladesh Workers' Federation is not a registered organisation and cannot claim the rights and privileges conferred by legislation on organisations which have complied with this formality. However, the trade unions affiliated with this Federation which have registered enjoy such rights and privileges. On the other hand, of the 2,530 registered trade unions in the country only 40 are affiliated with this Federation and it is considered that the total number of their members does not exceed 25,000 workers, concentrated mainly in the large Chittagong industrial zone.
3. 12. The Government goes on to state that it has undertaken in accordance with the national Constitution to establish a socialist economic system in order to create a just and egalitarian society. It cannot be involved in any type of repression or oppression as the complaint alleges. The Government is aware of the need to revise wage structures in view of rising prices and, for this purpose, it has decided to create a National Wage Board, which will be empowered to revise wages in the public sector. The Minimum Wages Board will revise wages in the private sector. More specifically, as far as the Presidential order of 1972 abolishing the right to strike in nationalised industries and public bodies is concerned, this has had very limited scope and it expired on 29 November 1972.
4. 13. The Government adds that the new labour policy states that workers will take a greater part in the management of nationalised industries and that disputes between the parties will be solved by joint consultative methods. Consequently, the Government points out, there will be no need to have recourse to collective bargaining in these industries. In any case, in view of the fact that the Bangladesh Constitution came into force on 16 December 1972, i.e. two-and-a-half months after the New Labour Policy was announced, the Government decided that the application of the latter should be deferred while it was being re-examined in the light of the Constitution, the professional organisations being consulted in the process. At present, the existing labour legislation continues in force until a new Act on the subject is prepared. The Government explains that in the Joint Management Board and the Workers-Management Councils, the workers and employers will be represented on an equal basis. As for wages and other benefits for workers in nationalised industries, they will be determined at the national level in order to avoid any disparity. Finally, with respect to the weekly "Lal Pataka", the Government indicates that this journal was not forbidden because it published news of the labour movement but because it published matters which were harmful to the interests of the State. There is no impediment whatsoever to workers' organisations' having their own newspapers.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 14. The Committee observes that this case deals mainly with questions relating to the prohibition of the right to strike and collective bargaining in nationalised industries and public bodies and to the suppression of a trade union weekly.
2. 15. As far as the right to strike is concerned, it appears from the information supplied by the Government that this question was solved when the Presidential Order abolishing the right to strike expired. As for collective bargaining, the Committee observes that, up to now, no legislation has been enacted on the subject but the Government considers that collective bargaining will not be necessary in view of the proposed system of workers' participation in the administration of nationalised undertakings and the planned creation of a National Wage Board on which workers will be represented. The Committee must point out in this connection that by declaring that it was bound by Convention No. 98, the Government took upon itself the obligation to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. This Convention applies both to the private sector and to that of nationalised undertakings and public bodies, it being possible to exclude from the application public servants engaged in the administration of the State.
3. 16. Finally, with reference to the suppression of the weekly "Lal Pataka", which belongs to the complainant organisation, the Committee recalls already having pointed out, in another case in which a trade union newspaper seemed to have gone beyond the purely trade union limits in its allusions and accusations against the Government, that the editors of trade union publications should be advised to refrain from excesses in their language. The Committee considered that the primary role of such publications should be to deal in their columns with matters essentially relating to the protection and furtherance of the interests of their members in particular and of all workers in general. The Committee recognised, however, that the borderline between political and purely trade union matters is difficult to establish. In view of the fact that these two notions overlap, it is inevitable and sometimes proper for trade union publications to take a stand on questions which have a political aspect as well as on strictly economic and social questions. However, the Committee also considered that it is only in so far as they do not allow their professional demands to assume a clearly political aspect that trade union organisations can legitimately claim that there should be no interference with their activities.